Deliberations Enter New Round—

EDC Preparing

Another Tech Park Plan

By Kendra Bobowick

He asked for one more month.

Economic Development Commission (EDC) Chairman Chet Hopper wants to give the Conservation Commission a chance to see new reports and new drawings for a proposed technology park. The first selectman had not expected the appeal, however. As Mr Hopper and Director of Planning and Community Development Elizabeth Stocker made a Capital Improvement Plan request of more than $4 million for infrastructure funds for the park at the selectmen’s meeting in mid-September, First Selectman Joe Borst had to wonder: “My last impression was that EDC and the Conservation Commission were in the final stages of a mutual agreement relative to the disposition of the tech park project. Apparently this is not so.” Mr Hopper wants more time toward that effort.

As of the September 15 selectmen’s meeting, Mr Borst had stressed that the groups “come up with a mutually agreeable resolution no later than October 31,” which he wrote in a mail to Conservation Commission Chair Joe Hovious. Most recently, Mr Hopper sought to extend the deadline.

In an email to The Bee, Mr Borst’s frustration is clear. “Mr Hopper requested a one month extension,” he wrote, citing a new date: November 28. “I okayed it,” he wrote, “But I fail to understand the added delay.” As of September he was ready to drop the EDC’s capital improvement request. He reiterated this week that delays in “getting the situation resolved” could force him to “seriously consider removing [EDC funding] from the CIP.”

The first selectman wants his town departments and volunteer commissions talking. He wants to “sit down and get the job done,” he said Monday. As of March, Mr Borst had stepped between the conservation and economic development members who could not agree on how much development to place on roughly 70 acres of land off Commerce Road. Of course, sentiments for development clashed with preservation on the parcel that borders Newtown’s most sensitive environmental nerve, Deep Brook.

At that time the two commissions had different preferences for how and where the building lots should be situated. Mr Borst had directed, “I want this squared away.” He had said months ago, “I requested that EDC use [conservation’s] layout and do what they have to do and come back and tell me if it’s economically feasible.” Two months later, in early May, Mr Hopper had said, “We can’t do that yet.” He awaited engineers’ studies, among other reports. Critical to the fiscal formula are lot sizes, number of lots, selling prices, and costs to install infrastructure. Also that week Mr Borst had reasserted his position. He had asked the EDC to assess the possibility of keeping 34 contiguous acres of open space along Deep Brook and see if the remaining building sites are economically viable.

From The EDC

Mr Hopper asked for an extension to the October 31 deadline. He noted a number of reports that conservation “needed to look through.” They have yet to review a new configuration of six lots rather than the previous nine-lot layout that prompted controversy over environmental impact. “[Conservation] had not seen” the new iteration of Tech Park lots and accompanying engineers’ reports, he explained. The EDC has generated paperwork on the new configuration that Mr Hopper wants conservation to see. “We’ve done a number of reports indicating what we can do and solutions and we have to discuss it with conservation.”

Economic development member Ted Kreinik agrees that the most recent information needs to be aired. “Give people the opportunity to look at everything,” he stressed. Papers are piling up. “We have had a lot of consultants, a lot of engineers.” Citing archaeological, fiscal, and marketing analyses, Mr Kreinik sought to answer: “Does this make fiscal sense” when changing the number of lots and considering the costs of infrastructure work that the town will put in place before selling lots to a select market of businesses.

“The question is, if we reduce the number of lots to preserve open space and steer clear of Deep Brook, we have to look at fiscal impact.” Adding the pieces together, Mr Kreinik said, “To meet what [Mr Borst] wants takes a little time.”

Ms Stocker explained that the CIP funding slated for the years 2010-2011 is for short-term notes to pay for the infrastructure that the lot sales would reimburse. Amending that number she explained that since the six-lot configuration emerged following the first selectman’s March meeting, the CIP request will be $30,000 less. Also wading through paperwork, she said, “We’ve worked on economic impact, market analysis,” and more, which will make her final report.

Common Ground?

Can the two commissions agree? “It’s not World War III,” Mr Hopper promised, as officials continue to attempt to agreeably split the former state land “and make some tax money,” he said.

Noting his bottom line, Mr Hopper said, “It’s to everyone’s benefit to have something there.” Mr Kreinik agreed that “absolutely,” his group is “trying to work with the Conservation Commission.” Despite his nod to discord earlier this year, he said, “We took our marching orders [from the first selectman] in March,” and is now organizing all the information. He hopes for open hearings or public comment during meetings for feedback. Since March, he said the EDC is considering its options.

“It’s not just building buildings, it’s conservation. No one is saying cut all the trees or kill the aquifer,” he said. He anticipates that in the coming month or two the EDC will have the public input and feedback it needs.

Like Mr Hopper, Mr Kreinik also narrowed down his point of view: “All of us want to preserve what’s beautiful about Newtown, and that doesn’t mean that nothing can get built.”

What about Mr Borst’s concern about the CIP funding request? Mr Kreinik noted that Mr Borst “could easily” drop it from the CIP, but that does not necessarily mean forever. Offering a hypothetical idea, he said, “If that’s the case, what if ten days later we have a proposal that says that the town could generate a good fiscal impact.” He did concede that the first selectman “made a decision on what he sees as important.”

He explained, “That’s [Mr Borst’s] decision; our decision will not be based on an arbitrary time line.” Conservation and the public still have to look at the plans, Mr Kreinik said. When might the CIP funds come through? “If not this year, maybe next year,” he imagines.

The land will remain, and there will always be a need for jobs and a tax base, he said. The technology park is not the “be all and end-all.” The point? “Retaining and keeping business happy in Newtown,” Mr Kreinik said.

From Land Use

Land Use Director George Benson has received plans including the six-lot configuration from the EDC members, but a meeting for the EDC to present its findings and plans to the Conservation Commission has not yet taken place. A meeting set for earlier this month was canceled, and he anticipates a meeting in coming weeks. He did acknowledge that “they just came out with” a market analysis, and “they have been accumulating” a lot of information for review.

Unlike prior months that found no change to EDC Tech Park plans that initially upset conservationists, Mr Benson looked at the work happening since March. “At least there is movement,” he said. At last something is “on the table,” Mr Benson said. “We’re moving toward a discussion.” Admitting that this is a “touchy, complicated process,” he said, “Six lots may not be the answer; it may not be developed at all, but at least the dialogue has begun.” Like the EDC, conservation members and Land Use Department officials also will weigh the fiscal and environmental aspects of tech park configurations.

Right now, Mr Benson cannot be sure there is a design that will be economically worthwhile. “I don’t know the answer until we start looking at the hard numbers and designs.” Like Mr Hopper and Mr Kreinik implied, differences of opinion may be temporarily at bay. “I think we all realized we had to look at this from all angles and come up with a solution — maybe we don’t do anything,” Mr Benson said.